This chapter contains a brief presentation of the historical development of physics toward the construction of the new relational nonlinear causal quantum physics. Starting from (a) traditional classical physics, which assumed that human knowledge was complete and moving, through (b) some mainstream indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics claiming the opposite, it is possible to develop (c) a relational complex nonlinear causal quantum physics. The relational noodromic approach to understanding reality may be viewed as a form of dialectical thinking. The process of articulating this approach is based on the eurhythmic principle—the generalization of the extreme principles of physics and of Spinoza conatus, which leads ultimately to a form of middle-way of thinking.
This chapter contains a brief presentation of the historical development of physics toward the construction of the new relational nonlinear causal quantum physics. Starting from (a) traditional classical physics, which assumed that human knowledge was complete and moving, through (b) some mainstream indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics claiming the opposite, it is possible to develop (c) a relational complex nonlinear causal quantum physics. The relational noodromic approach to understanding reality may be viewed as a form of dialectical thinking. The process of articulating this approach is based on the eurhythmic principle—the generalization of the extreme principles of physics and of Spinoza conatus, which leads ultimately to a form of middle-way of thinking.
The classical world, governed by classical physics, might have felt more intuitive and certain. However, the 20th century’s revolutionary birth of quantum mechanics opened a way to the “quantum world”. This chapter investigates the evolving concept of “world”, especially exploring the special and general theories of relativity, with Wittgenstein’s philosophical view that the world is composed of facts, or the existence of states of things. Quantum mechanics has two essential principles: The Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the new Heisenberg uncertainty principle, where the former indicates the inherent uncertainty within the quantum world and the latter uncovers the certainty under some circumstances such as quantum entanglement. Quantum mechanics, while having multiple interpretations, is considered a relatively complete framework; however, its “counterfactuals”—scientific facts that defy classical expectations—can be challenging for the classical understanding. Additionally, the potential for “backward causality” under time symmetry conditions adds another level of complexity. These counterfactuals and the possibility of backward causality don’t contradict existing facts, but rather signal the expansion of our scientific scope and, potentially, a new scientific paradigm.
The aim of the research is to develop a dialectical relational-event ontology (DREO), that is, a second-order metaphysical framework designed to resolve the fundamental problems of the philosophy of quantum physics: wave-particle dualism and the irreducible pluralism of interpretations. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the following: for the first time, not just another interpretation of quantum mechanics is proposed, but a meta-framework that dialectically sublates the pluralism of interpretations itself and demonstrates their systemic unity; the category of a "relational event" is introduced as a fundamental unit of being, which marks a transition from substantial metaphysics (debates on the individuality of objects) to a metaphysics of becoming; wave-particle dualism is interpreted not as ontological (two entities) and not as epistemological (N. Bohr's complementarity principle), but as a dialectical contradiction sublated in the concept of "relational potentiality" – a structure of possibilities actualized depending on the perspective; the complementarity of wave and particle for the first time receives ontological status – it is a mode of existence of quantum reality itself as a "pulsation" between modes of actualization; a new model of scientific rationality is substantiated – dialectical pluralism – where truth is not a property of an individual proposition but a property of the entire system of perspectives taken in their dialectical unity, which fundamentally distinguishes DREO from contextual quantum realism (CQR), which remains within the static opposition of "rule – application" and epistemological perspectivism. The key results of the study are the following ideas: a relational event (rather than an object or a relation in itself) is recognized as the fundamental unit of being – a discrete act of transition from the potential to the actual in a specific context of interaction; "particle" and "wave" are interpreted as two extreme, mutually exclusive and simultaneously complementary types of actualization of a single structure of potencies in different perspectives; the multiplicity of incompatible but empirically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics is shown not as a flaw in the theory, but as a logical consequence of the relational structure of reality, which requires a multitude of complementary perspectives for its adequate expression. Thus, the century-old opposition between objectivism and relativism in the philosophy of science is removed.
A philosophic account of quantum physics. The thesis is divided into two parts. Part I is dedicated to laying the groundwork of quantum physics, and explaining some of the primary difficulties. Subjects of interest will include the principle of locality, the quantum uncertainty principle, and Einstein's criterion for reality. Quantum dilemmas discussed include the double-slit experiment, observations of spin and polarization, EPR, and Bell's theorem. The first part will argue that mathematical-physical descriptions of the world fall short of explaining the experimental observations of quantum phenomenon. The problem, as will be argued, is framework of the physical descriptive schema. Part I includes in-depth discussions of mathematical principles. Part II will discuss the Copenhagen interpretation as put forth by its founders. The Copenhagen interpretation will be expressed as a paradox: The classical physical language cannot describe quantum phenomenon completely and with certainty, yet this language is the only possible method of articulating the physical world. The paradox of Copenhagen will segway into Kant's critique of metaphysics. Kant's understanding of causality, things-in-themselves, and a priori synthetic metaphysics. The thesis will end with a conclusion of the quantum paradox by juxtaposing anti-materialist Martin Heidegger with quantum founder Werner Heisenberg. Our conclusion will be primarily a discussion of how we understand the world, and specifically how our understanding of the world creates potential for truth.
To understand quantum phenomena, namely, the particle-wave duality, in a causal relational way, a complex nonlinear process, in which a minor action may, under adequate conditions, give rise to a huge reaction, was proposed by de Broglie. The nonlinear process is mediated by the guiding or pilot wave principle, or as is now named by the principle of eurhythmy. This process rejects the ontic status of the Cartesian linear method in which the whole is assumed to be the simple linear combination of the parts and the action is always presumed to be equal and opposite to the reaction. The constituent parts of the whole are supposed to be naturally expected to maintain their own identity in every conceivable interacting situation.
Abstract This book tells the story of Bohm’s hitherto unpublished lecture notes on quantum theory and dialectical materialism. It places his lecture notes in a wider historical, scientific, and philosophical context and traces Bohm’s intellectual development from an early attempt to better understand the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to his elaboration of an alternative causal interpretation based on the notion of “hidden variables.” As the lecture notes strikingly illustrate, dialectical materialism played a fundamental role in the further development of his understanding of quantum mechanics. Bohm placed the notions of the infinity of nature and the unity of opposites at the center of his natural philosophy, drawing from the works of Hegel, Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The book also examines Bohm’s legacy in the history of quantum mechanics and his contribution to preparing the “second quantum revolution.” Bohm’s engagement with dialectical materialism and his role as a dissident from the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics were pivotal in bringing about the novel insights and technologies associated with this second quantum revolution. During the 1960s, Bohm developed a growing interest in the nature of consciousness and engaged with the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. But this new phase in Bohm’s intellectual odyssey was, in spite of a seemingly fundamental break with earlier philosophical positions, not completely unrelated to his fascination with, and deep understanding of, Hegel’s philosophy, which the lecture notes amply document for the first time.
Abstract Despite its extraordinary predictive power, quantum mechanics has been hailed as a paradoxical, self-contradictory theory of nature. How does it question the intelligibility of physical worldview? The wave-particle dualism, the incompatibility of physical quantities, the complementarity between the space-time description and the causal description of phenomena question key-notions of the traditional metaphysics, such as substance and cause, but they also call attention to the vital dialectical contrast between the continuous and the discrete, the infinite and the finite, consciousness and matter, and to the essential relational character of measuring, seeing, and knowing. Does quantum physics also question the Western way of thinking? The aim of this article is to show how quantum monadology not only breathes new life into Leibniz’s and Nicholas of Cusa’s monads, but also echoes Nishida’s ‘dialectical monadology’ and orients our gaze towards a metaphysics of universal harmony, i.e., a metaphysics of the dialectical universal or a metaphysics of indeterminacy.